User talk:Dr. Vadam

Welcome!

Hello, Dr. Vadam! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Transformers (film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Transformers (film) was changed by Dr. Vadam (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.938545 on 2014-11-21T05:54:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of Transformers film series characters, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please see the relevant guideline, WP:ANTAGONIST, and discuss the issue on the article's talk page if you disagree. SummerPhD (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Megatron. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please see WP:ANTAGONIST and discuss the issue if you disagree. SummerPhD (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of Transformers film series characters. Please discuss the issue. SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader.

Hi, we are currently studying a course at college and we have been given the topic 'Darth Vader'. we have seen you are an expert on the subject, and we would really appreciate it if you could answer some of these questions.

Why was Darth Vader created? Why was there a massive suspense for finding out he was Luke's father? Why was the light saber his famous prop? Why did he always wear a mask?

We understand you may be very busy but if you could take a moment of your time we'd be very grateful, thankyou! Livwindows (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Darth Vader does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in: User contributions, Recent changes, Watchlists, Revision differences, IRC channels, Related changes, New pages list and Article editing history.

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 06:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my specific comment at Talk:Darth Vader#Edit war. As some of your edits in several articles seem to have been controversial/challenged, you should get into the habit of using edit summaries to explain your edits, and/or starting discussions on the appropriate talk pages before making potentially controversial edits. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Darth Vader shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry I did not reply earlier, or if I've offended anyone. I just think its better like that; doesn't Obi-Wan feel immense remorse in leaving Vader to die? That's i made the "With bitter regret, Obi-Wan retrieves Vader's lightsaber and leaves him to die". Also although Anakin does brutally execute Dooku, he didn't techincally kill him in cold blood, because he expressed regret afterward. So i changed the line from "During the rescue, Anakin defeats Count Dooku in a lightsaber duel and decapitates him in cold blood at Palpatine's urging", to "During the rescue, Anakin defeats Count Dooku in a lightsaber duel and brutally executes him at Palpatine's urging". Also, I've changed the line when Luke defeats Vader to make it more specfic: Luke severs Vader's right mechanical hand, he doesn't just disarm him.[reply]

No hard feelings. Since your relatively new, if you have any further problems when your edits are reverted or challenged, please discuss these changes on the talk page rather before making potentially controversial edits to any article. There are some fundamental policies we must follow: WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. We should also avoid puffery and using peacock terms. Finally, please don't forget to sign with four tildes and use edit summaries to describe your edits. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Vadam (talk • contribs) 07:09, December 4, 2015

No problem. We should also remain civil as Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedic environment. By the way, you may also want to take a look at WP:MOSFILM, WP:SIMPLE, WP:WAF and WP:MOS as well if you are interested. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to bother you but someone keeps reverting my edits on the Darth Vader page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Vadam (talk • contribs) 08:51, December 8, 2015

The editor(s) reverting you have asked in their edit summaries for you to discuss your changes at Talk:Darth Vader, which you have not done. You haven't tried to explain in an edit summary either. I can see you're still learning, do you need assistance with how to do those things?— TAnthony^Talk 17:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are still changing the article Darth Vader without consensus and seem to be ignoring the various editors who are offering help and advice. Please discuss your changes at Talk:Darth Vader. Any further changes without discussion will be reverted and a request for you to be blocked from editing will be made. Robynthehode (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, i apologize if i've offended anyone. But i haven't received any previous message about others offering help and advice. And i do not know how to use talk pages very well. I'm sorry if i've offended anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Vadam (talk • contribs) 09:30, December 13, 2015

Hello, I'm sorry to disturb you, but someone keeps reverting my edits on Darth Vader page. Its really annoying and i'm only trying to make the lines more informative and specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Vadam (talk • contribs) 06:48, January 8, 2016

Dr. Vadam, multiple editors have explained to you how some of your edits have been trivial and unnecessary. Try to understand a few things. First of all, the Darth Vader article is a longstanding and very popular one that is monitored and edited by many people, so there are a lot of opinions. A lot of work has been done to the article over the years, and since the current version has presumably been agreed upon by multiple editors, you are only causing yourself grief by trying to rework too much of it. More specifically, articles need to be as concise as possible, especially where plot details are concerned, so we must present the bones of storylines but not every event or detail. Perhaps you should post at Talk:Darth Vader and suggest text to be added, and other editors can collaborate on your additions.— TAnthony^Talk 07:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why my edits are "unnecessary" and "trivial", I'm trying make the lines more informative. In fact, i don't even know what "trivial" means. I'm sorry if i've offended anyone, but how would you like it if someone kept revering your edits. I've already been cyber bullied recently on Transformers wiki; i was trying to make lines more specific and informative and correct some mistakes, and all the supervisers did was keep telling me to F**k off and that my edits were stupid. I kept trying to be polite, but they just kept swearing at me. And when my dad tried to send a message to them, they said i was pretending to be him and they blocked me permenantly. And i'm not lying about this, I hate lies. Lies for the weak and deluded. OK, i'm sorry if I've offended you and if you insist I will leave it alone, but I can't always help it. Think about what I have said, please. I'm not trying to be rude, and i never meant to hurt anyone. Regards and respects, Dr. Vadam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Vadam (talk • contribs) 07:40, January 8, 2016

I'm sorry if you have been frustrated at Wikipedia, but we do have strict policies about politeness and collaboration here so you'll notice that several editors have left constructive criticism and offers of assistance on this page. You are not "offending" anyone, but by persistently trying to add the same information that multiple editors object to, you are frustrating them. In general, we consider "trivial" to mean too many specific details that are not really necessary to explain the topic. What you may think is "informative" may just not be what we consider encyclopedic. You may notice that other wikis have a LOT of plot compared to Wikipedia, this is because we have stricter rules regarding content and style. As fans we all like interesting details and plot points, but in keeping articles concise we have to cover the basic story but trim extraneous tidbits. I can't speak to exactly what other editors may not have liked about your edits, but like I said, the Darth Vader article has already been tweaked a lot so it does not surprise me that the group of editors who collaborated on it might find it problematic for you to add several sentences of plot details. Again, since several editors have objected, you might try discussing what you want to add in advance, and perhaps several editors can agree on an acceptable way to present some of what you want to add.— TAnthony^Talk 08:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean; many other wiki have more details then Wikipedia. I might try to discuss about editing with you and others later, but I have other things to do. I am very grateful that you have been polite and reasonable. I will leave the Darth Vader page alone for the time being. See you round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Vadam (talk • contribs) 08:28, January 8, 2016 Hello, sorry to bother you, but I have a question. On the page of Count Dooku should Anakin be described as brutally decapitating Dooku or decapitating him in cold blood? I'm not sure, so I'm asking your opinion.

Revenge of the Sith

You need to stop trying to add the same edits to this article again and again when several editors have reverted them. No one likes this "dismembers him" in particular. If you really think it is better, try and discuss it on the talk page, but edit-warring will get you nowhere. Thanks. Mezigue (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Canterbury Tail talk 23:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, i apologize if I've offended anyone. But i have done talk page and explained my reason to the other editor and he just keeps changing them. I'm not trying to be annoying, i'm only trying to improve some pages.[reply]

Gandalf and the balrog

Hi -- I've removed the extended description of the lake beneath Moria. Tolkien nowhere describes it as "huge", and says only that it is far beneath Moria, not "miles" beneath. Both are assumptions you have made from the text, but are not supported by the text, therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- Elphion (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my responses

Hi, my apologies if I don't respond to you right away on my talk pages, since I've been busy with other articles. I usually remove talk page discussions from my own page at my own discretion, and these should not be restored per WP:TPG. However, if you disagree with anyone else's edits (including mine), rather than edit war, please follow WP:BRD (bold, revert and discuss) and discuss in a a calm and civilized discussion on the article talk page and gain a consensus. Also, as a side note, I've been here for nearly 10 years, have nearly 71,000 edits, and know how to write in the appropriate WP:TONE for articles. We will continue to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here and in other articles, whether you agree with them or not. You may also want to familiarize yourself with WP:EP, WP:DR and WP:CON to avoid edit war scenarios like this in the future. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I've offended you, but you have (unintentionally i'm sure) offended me; why are my edits "unnecessary", they give both detail and sense to the page, and can give the reader a clearer understanding. I don't want to be rude or anything, but some of your just don't make it clear enough. I respect you and your reputation, and i don't mean you any offense, but you should think before you do something. I've been here a long time as well, and I've done many edits too. I was cyber-bullied on Transformers wiki once; they kept telling to F**K off and that my edits were just "silly micro-edits". And when my dad tried to help, thy just blocked me permanently, claiming that i was "pretending" to be him. I'm not lying about this, lies are for the weak and deluded. I'm sure you're not like them. You have my regards, Lord Sjones23. I hope you understand.

What's the difference between "mistrust" and "distrust"?

That's all right, no hard feelings. And I don't mean to be offensive when I reverse anyone's good faith edits (yours included); if I did something to offend you, then I sincerely apologize. I'm just trying to help improve Wikipedia to the highest degree (that is, editing articles that can go up to WP:FA or WP:GA status). In fictional articles, I get rid of fluff or unnecessary detail if I find it to be in violation of relevant policies and guidelines (like scene-by-scene breakdowns or minutae detail; these can be reduced to get an understanding for unfamiliar readers). I understand where you are coming from, but please keep calm when someone reverts your edits (I don't usually get upset when someone reverts mine, since here at Wikipedia, civility is essential). Typically, editors who often edit war over certain changes can be reported and blocked; since we don't want that, we work on consensus between others by discussing changes on article talk pages. By the way, there are some other policies that are important too: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. You may want to read WP:TPG about how user and article talk pages are different. Also, as you know, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so no one is in control of the articles. If there are excessive fictional details or trivia in Wikipedia articles, it's best to trim it out and send it to other wiki websites (like Wookiepedia), or if it doesn't comply with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, send them to WP:AFD. Please do not be deterred from editing Wikipedia. All the best, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, i don't mean any offense, but i think conflicted is not a very good way to describe how she feels about the ordeal. And as i said confused is a good translation for conflicted and heartbroken is a good translation for deeply hurt. So tell me, why do you seem so determined to revert my edits?

I know I'm not offending you, but currently, we are discussing this matter on Talk:Ahsoka Tano#Recent edits to establish a discussion, so we need to keep discussion on the talk page rather than reverting as it could lead to a block and anyone engaged in an edit war is wrong. Actually, here's the cited text that I found from here: "Ahsoka walks away because she is conflicted. She is not mad at Anakin, she knows doing this will hurt him, but she hopes he understands. She is frustrated with the Jedi Council, there is a feeling of betrayal. Much of this has to do with Anakin’s training and attachment rubbing off on her. She also leaves because while she believes Barriss was wrong, she cannot deny that there is truth to what Barriss was saying, especially in light of her own recent experiences. She needs perspective." The "deeply hurt" wording is not supported by that particular text. Use authoritative sources where necessary if Filoni has actually said it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, i've read that interview, but i've also read another review in which it was stated Ahsoka was "deeply hurt and disappointed by the whole ordeal".

I see, but is it reliable enough to be included in that discussion? On an unfortunate note, we can't use Wookieepedia or the Disney Wikia as sources (They use that "deeply hurt and disappointed by the whole ordeal" wording there too), since they are unreliable. Please don't forget to sign with four tildes. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zootopia

I've reverted your edit here as you forced a line break mid-sentence and added unnecessary scene-by-scene details. Previous version perfectly summed up what you added, but in fewer words, which is perfectly acceptable per WP:PLOTSUMNOT. -- ChamithN (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dr. Vadam. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dr. Vadam. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr. Vadam. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr. Vadam. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Survivors characters

The article List of Survivors characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT that belongs elsewhere (fandom.com).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cabayi (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While you've removed the PROD request, you've done nothing for the lack of sourcing. Would you like it moved to Draft for further work until it's ready, or shall I start a deletion discussion?

By the way, using the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument isn't the most successful of cases. Cabayi (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivors characters moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of Survivors characters, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Survivors characters concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of Survivors characters, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of Survivors characters

Hello, Dr. Vadam. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Survivors characters".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]